BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized documents found in third party

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized documents found in third party

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

9. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, since the appellant being a civil contractor has shown a profit of 6.59% of the total turnover, the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8,26,46,443/- shall not be a ground of initiating the proceeding under the section 153A beyond the period of six years, thereby making

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

9. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, since the appellant being a civil contractor has shown a profit of 6.59% of the total turnover, the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8,26,46,443/- shall not be a ground of initiating the proceeding under the section 153A beyond the period of six years, thereby making

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

9. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, since the appellant being a civil contractor has shown a profit of 6.59% of the total turnover, the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8,26,46,443/- shall not be a ground of initiating the proceeding under the section 153A beyond the period of six years, thereby making

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

9. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, since the appellant being a civil contractor has shown a profit of 6.59% of the total turnover, the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8,26,46,443/- shall not be a ground of initiating the proceeding under the section 153A beyond the period of six years, thereby making

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

9. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, since the appellant being a civil contractor has shown a profit of 6.59% of the total turnover, the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8,26,46,443/- shall not be a ground of initiating the proceeding under the section 153A beyond the period of six years, thereby making

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

9. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, since the appellant being a civil contractor has shown a profit of 6.59% of the total turnover, the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8,26,46,443/- shall not be a ground of initiating the proceeding under the section 153A beyond the period of six years, thereby making

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

9. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, since the appellant being a civil contractor has shown a profit of 6.59% of the total turnover, the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8,26,46,443/- shall not be a ground of initiating the proceeding under the section 153A beyond the period of six years, thereby making

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

1 Cr., therefore, the provision of section 44AD of the Act are not applicable. The assessee has not filed any evidence like purchase, sale bills or the details of TDS/TCS, if any, for the business of liquor nor even the copy of license in the name of Shri Om Prakash Bhagat and copy of any agreement with Shri Om Prakash

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

9 of statement on oath recorded of Shri Roshan Kumar Agarwal partner of M/s Sri Ram Enterprises on 27.03.2018 after issuing of summon u/s 131(1) and its reply is appended below:- 18. In reply to question no. 13 of statement on oath of Sri Roshan Kumar Agarwal recorded during u/s 131(1) on 27.03.2018, he admitted to disclose income

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

1)(a) of the 1961 Act. The Court held as under: "...If an appeal lies, section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in such an appeal. Under section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance

ASHISH RANJAN,DARBHANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9,43,570/- was created on account of\nmismatch of Tax Deducted at source.\n2.2. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Id. CIT (A) by\nobserving and holding as under:-\n“8. The Ground No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 raised by the appellant are related to the same issue\ni.e. denial of TDS amounting to Rs.8

BBCPL-RCPL (JV),JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence